An appeals court in The Netherlands has sided with Samsung and ruled that its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet does not infringe on patented designs owned by Apple.

The Dutch court determined that the valid scope of Apple's asserted design-related right was narrow, which means it was not infringed upon by Samsung, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.

The prior art considered in the case was six different designs, including the HP Compaq TC 1000 and a Knight-Ridder tablet concept first detailed in 1994.

"The two companies need the courts in various jurisdictions to clarify where Apple's exclusive scope of protection ends and Samsung's freedom to compete begins," Mueller explained. "There's no mathematical formula based on which they could simply agree that Samsung's products are allowed to have a degree of similarity up to (for example) 70%. Instead, they need guidance from judges."

The latest ruling is yet another setback for Apple in its attempts to bar sales of the Galaxy Tab family of products. Apple found some initial success and even prompted Samsung to redesign its tablet and create the Galaxy Tab 10.1N to avoid infringement, but many earlier injunctions that had temporarily barred the sales of Galaxy Tab products have since been overturned, allowing Samsung to release its products.

The Dutch court's ruling comes a week before the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court in Germany is set to hear an appeal related to a preliminary injunction granted to Apple. In addition, Germany's Dusseldorf Regional Court is scheduled to decide in early February whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1N infringes on Apple's design patents.

Last week, a German court tossed a lawsuit in which Samsung accused Apple of violated a patent related to 3G/UMTS wireless communications. And earlier in the week, Apple filed a new lawsuit in Germany accusing Samsung's Galaxy S II and nine other smartphones, along with five tablet models, of patent infringement.

The ongoing legal battle between Samsung and Apple got underway last April, when Apple filed the first lawsuit, accusing Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Both companies are now engaged in a worldwide legal battle that has sparked lawsuits in 10 countries across four continents.

The court said it took into account prior art in order to narrow the scope of Apple's patented design right.

"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPadthe first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually iswe're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.

These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.

"Yeah, okay, to prove that the Samsung tablet isn't infringing on the iPadthe first tablet made after the redefinition of what a tablet actually iswe're going to look at prior tablet art from CRAP THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE IPAD.

These guys need fired. Apple had better appeal this with some actually competent people.

This was the appeal to the Netherland's High Court. It's done and over.

You remember this isn't about Samsung copying the iPad. It's all about a Community Design, a two-dimensional drawing that Apple filed rights to. They still have the Community Design as it wasn't invalidated unlike some of their recent patent claims. It's just that certain elements that Apple was trying to assert sole rights to were too broad and Samsung's use of those particular elements had a history of being used before well before Apple put them on a piece of paper and filed with the EU.

SHOW US exactly how it is "blatantly illegal" please. Better yet, send that information to their appeals court. Oh, their appeals court ended it. It IS legal. It is over. Move on.

I do use an iPhone and a Mac Mini (not to mention using Apple computers since my first Apple IIc), but I am really getting tire of Apple's "sue them all' mentality. Does anyone even know what patents are actually being sued over? Seems to be a big waste of time, energy, and money that could be better used in the creation of new hardware and software. I guess that would only be true if all the blood-sucking lawyers were retrained in a hardware/software design career. It shames me to admit that I have family that are lawyers.

They didn't want to wait to find out if the initial "emergency injunction" was going to be upheld in the final ruling, and needed to get sales underway. The final judgement is due within a couple of weeks IIRC. Personally I think the court will find that Apple should never had received the preliminary injunction to begin with and will be ordered to pay damages to Samsung. That's just my personal view and I'm no lawyer.

EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.

The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

I can imagine they are just as shamed to have a Fandroid in the family.

What part of the English language do you not understand?

1. Have owned Apple computers since my first Apple IIc (my first was an Atari 800).
2. Currently own an iPhone 4 and Mac Mini.
3 (Wasn't in my original post, but for clarification) I don't own an Android phone. I tried one and returned it. Same with a Samsung Focus running Windows Phone OS - returned it.

So, how exactly am I a "Fandroid"? Because I don't think that everything Apple does is 100% rosy? Get a life.

Using your argument: I like steaks, but have problems with system where beef is raised and slaughtered in the U.S., so I must therefore be a vegan? Wow, just ... wow.

No surprise - Apple's thermonuclar strategy against Android will at best result in expensive legal stalemates. It's time for Cook to put a fork it and pursue a pragmatic course of action and sign patent agreements ala Microsoft and LG.

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.

No surprise - Apple's thermonuclar strategy against Android will at best result in expensive legal stalemates. It's time for Cook to put a fork it and pursue a pragmatic course of action and sign patent agreements ala Microsoft and LG.

Agreed. Apple's products need to stand or fall on their own merit (and I think they will). The thing that will take down Apple is not Android, etc., but instead will be some future internal decisions. That is what almost killed Apple the first time around. Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.

Sigh...it is NOT about copying....How difficult is it to understand this? It is an argument over patents and their use...

EDIT: No, seriously. Explain to me how pre-iPad tablets are relevant to what we, as modern humans, call a tablet. This would be like a light bulb company winning a lawsuit based on the court looking at Edison's incandescent lamp.

The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

Tallest Skil, you're still looking at this as tho it was about the Tab looking too much like the iPad. That's not what this case was. See my previous posts where I tried to explain it.

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Samesung will copy Apple's products even more now! And then make commercials publically stating they did so.

I think the court is more qualified to make that decision that you are. Either way, the case is over. Done. Finished. Move on.

Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

The thing that Edison created wouldn't be defined as a light bulb today. A car from the 20s wouldn't be defined as a car today. This case is insane.

Think of it this way:

If Honda sued Toyota for using bucket seats after Honda "innovated" them, Toyota could show a 1920's car to the judge with bucket seats, in order to prove that Honda had no right to exclusive use of bucket seats.

Likewise, if Sylvania popularized a tubular lightbulb, and someone else copied it, the copier could show that tubular bulbs had been used in Edison's day, to prove that Sylvania should have no exclusive rights.

IIRC, this case used many examples of prior art, ranging from depictions in fiction to Samsung's own prior products.

Actually, I think the Samsung attorneys should be listened to - you know, the ones who couldn't tell the difference between the iPad and the Tab - even though that had been their entire life for months.

Look at Sony. Sony's hubris is what caused its late adoption of the digital music idea. Sony fought against it, all the while Apple breezed in the iPod. Sony never recovered. Even now in Japan, the iPod and iPhone have take much from Sony.

IIRC, Sony used a proprietary digital music format in its early portable players. IMO, that is what killed them in that market. They had it sewn up with the Walkman, and they blew it with their early digital players.

MiniDisk too - a good format, but limited to Sony, and therefore less appealing commercially. Sony also insisted on using a proprietary memory card format, which was distasteful to many people.

What side of the BluRay/HD DVD war was Sony on? I've not paid much attention to Sony since the late 1990's.

So you're an expert in Dutch law. You must be if you are contending that this tactic is 'blatantly illegal'

You might not like the ruling or what the courts examined, but perhaps under Dutch law they are allowed to do so.

And in the end, perhaps even Apple knew they weren't likely to win in all courts of law. But they had other reasons for doing this. The first being the requirement to protect, or attempt to do so, or forfeit all rights under trade dress law. The second being that these cases have been talked about a lot in the blogs etc. The similarities and timings are now known to a lot more people that before wouldn't have been attentive to such details. And while the courts might say that there was no illegal copying, the court of public opinion might think twice on the issue of how much inspiration Samsung is taking from another company. And that could produce a win that is even better for Apple. A loss in court means little if the winner's products still lack in sales. And frankly I haven't seen anything Samsung blowing it away sales wise (especially once you account for high return rates)

Results like this basically mean one thing to Samesung. It's perfectly fine to copy all of Apple's products and sell them. In fact,

In the Netherlands at this moment yes.

Worldwide no. They haven't won that right. And for all we know Apple has the right to appeal the appeal and will do so. And might be able to wait to see what other EU courts are saying to use that in the process. Or tweak the approach and file another suit.

OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

You OK with that?
Just asking.

Ah, even if justice says they are not copying you say they are copying. Curious view of justice, I won't change my mind even if reality says other thing

So Apple could easily sue again for that and win, is what you're saying?

Yes, a different device might be found to be too close to the line-drawings. The Dutch court found that this device, the Tab 10.1, was not, or to be specific those elements that Apple claimed Samsung was using had already been used by previous devices before Apple drew them.

OK Netherlands... how 'bout this?
I'm going to build an exact replica of the Van Gogh Museum next to the real thing and get a sizable percentage of tourists to unknowingly come into my museum.
Inside will be amateurish copies of the master's paintings, and my customers will end up pissed at the Netherlands, degrading your reputation. But that's just fine, right?

You OK with that?
Just asking.

As I'm Dutch I'll react...

Absolutely no problem with your suggestion, as long as you don't claim the paintings are real van Goghs.